Teh Ricer Civic!

Central banks are a threat to us all. We probably wouldn't even be in this mess if we didn't have a central bank. But what i think FOG is trying to point out that Obama essentially wants to be able to control anything he deems a "problem" to the economy, which is de facto socialism.

Speaking of dictionaries, who decided that Merriam Webster was the dictionary to follow anyways? Because of him/her we are all stuck with stupidly spelled words!

Yeah SOME of them were. The lot were from the Mexican army which are products of the US sold to them by the government and/or some other illegal means. Besides why the hell would the drug cartel waste their own money buying semi-automatics from Texas when they can get the real deal cheaper off black markets? And why does the drug cartel exist in the first place? Oh and as for the CIA report. I was mistaken, it was a study done by the NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES which found that "right to carry" laws have no effect. As in people are allowed to carry concealed with no permit or people are completely not allowed to carry. I may have to read the rest of the report to see what else it said. Additionally, please stop misrepresenting an AK-47 as a "high powered" rifle. Its a middle powered rifle at best (barely suitable to take down deer). Now a .50BMG is a high power rifle. And FYI, the 47 was still pervasive and cheap under Clinton as well. The only difference? No muzzle breaks or bayonet socket (cause we all know how those criminals like to use bayonets) i think they were also single stacks so they only held 10 rounds but i don't remember for sure (of course it takes all of 5-10 minutes to change the rifle to accept double stack "high capacity" mags). Additionally the term "assault rifle" is a bunch of bunk because there are NO ASSAULT RIFLES SOLD LEGALLY IN THE US (unless its a class 3 weapon). a SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE, by DEFINITION IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. An assault rifle is select fire which means it can fire in semi auto, full auto, or perhaps 3 round burst. No new civilian rifles are full auto and therefore are not "assault rifles." I am assuming the Belgium made "cop killa" is the FN 5-7 which shoots a round supposedly good at penetrating armor. The only problem is that the armor penetrating rounds are only sold to the military; not to the civilian population. I would not consider the bullet that the FN 5-7 shoots to be a "rifle" round although i think the P90 may shoot it, but that is a SMG/PDW. So, yes the media like to exaggerate things and blow them way out of proportion, whats new?

You are correct my good sir! Those are US rifles manufactured for the US government and are marked FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY. Those weapons were sold/given to the Mexican army. Unfortunately the Mexican army has 1400 AWOLs ever month. Thats where they got most of their weapons.

Well Mexico prohibits all private citizens from owning firearms. Canada only severely restricts it. I'd try n move to Switzerland personally.

Simple, Canada is a different population than America. Even if no one had any guns at all America would still have more violence than Canada. And as to Moltar. You greatly misunderstand the point of having weapons. It is self defense, sportsmanship, and fun. Guns are NOT to be used for revenge or simply to get back at someone who annoys you. Any LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER would not do any of these things. Criminals on the other hand will do this weather it is with a gun or with some old fashion homemade explosives.

Of course it is breaking the law! California likes to not enforce the law in that regards. All i am am simply saying is that the minimum wage laws exacerbate the problem. Oh and California's minimum wage law was quite a bit higher than federal not but a few years ago. If you are a US citizen, and for some reason you want to work out in the fields, you probably will not be able to because the farmer will be like, "im not going to pay you minimum wage" and then go and hire some illegal for far less. That is incentive. As for a living wage, minimum wage will NEVER EVER EVER EVER become a living wage because inflation will quickly see to it that it is not . The whole minimum wage argument is extremely misguided and ineffective... other than for raising unemployment. Want a living wage? Get a better job. Go to school, there is money out there for you to be able to. Perhaps, oh i dont know, put away a little bit of money each paycheck for your children to go to school. I did not come from a wealthy family, but we did not have to resort to borrowing to send me to college because of good financial planning. No, but inane laws that do nothing but restrict the freedom of law abiding citizens is not right (somehow having a pistol grip on your rifle makes it an assault weapon, even though its the SAME EXACT RIFLE WITHOUT IT). There is a difference between having a 5 minute background check (providing information on criminal records and mental illnesses) and waiting 10 days for no good reason other than to stop "hot heads" who would resort to some other method anyways. besides, a CIA investigation has shown that gun laws are in general uncorrelated to crime rates. There is no benefit to having stricter gun laws, so why punish the law abiding people who would abide by the law anyways? Fearmongering on this issue is pointless, the majority of American's do not favor stricter gun laws because they know they don't do any damn good. Criminals will always get their arms, law abiding people will abide by the law. Why strip them of their freedom when law breakers, will, by definition, break the law? Besides, why do people pick on schools so much? Perhaps it is because these are gun free zones and they know full well that they will not meet any resistance here until the police show up.

You can buy any handgun in California as long as it is on some BS "safe" gun list. You have to wait 10 days before receiving your firearm, which has done all of nothing to stem crime other than make people wait. If you have the wrong stock on your rifle it is now an "assault weapon." Yes that's right, if i put on a collapsible stock on a rifle that has a detachable magazine, it is now magically an "assault rifle" even though its overall length well conforms to Federal Laws even while fully collapsed. California has amongst the strictest gun laws of any state in the union, and they still have very high crime rates. It is not hard to argue that these laws are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. California is NOT the most free and open state. If it were there would be fewer laws, more freedoms (less regulation). People would not be taxed at the 2nd or 3rd highest rates in the Union if it were truly the most free state (to pay for all the social welfare programs, which is still draining the money of the state even with high tax rates). Minimum wage laws would not be substantially higher than they are elsewhere (contributing to higher unemployment, higher inflation and more incentive to use illegal labor). Which cheats people from their freedom to get a job. California is the most socialist state in the Union and its declining economy (on a global scale) as well as a large number of middle class people leaving the state is a clear indication that its policies have not worked very well (and the govornator is a RINO at best). Freedom is not about telling you how to live your lives. Its about NOT telling you how to live your lives. Being free and just in one area while being repressive and unjust in another area does not a free state make.

Instead of using pointless inflammatory words like those, how about point out the specifics. Texas may repress gay marriage, but they definitely have more liberal (free) gun control laws than say California, which represses both. Would you then say that Texas is less repressive than California since on the whole it represses less people? I doubt it. No pun intended. California does not take too kindly to its conservatives in parts of the state... do they oppress conservatives/libertarians? In other parts of the state they do not take too kindly to liberals... do they too oppress liberals? Ever been to a Californian college? Many of them, especially Berkley will boo off conservative speakers (even if they are not even speaking of social issues) just because they are conservative and do not have the same views as the majority up there. That, by definition, is the suppression of free speech. So please, be more specific in your claims instead of just using borderline hate words.

Pontiac can be kept around for cool sporty cars, however most of their other cars are no more interesting than the Chevy equivalent and it is redundant and inefficient to have 2 of the same car. For instance, if Pontiac only had RWD cars that were all geared for sweet handling, great power, and general funness, then it is fine since Chevy probably will not have an equivalent car to that

I'd drive that baby right off a cliff

Its because IT IS the same company that built your sweet ass 68 Impala. GM failed to stay current with the current corporate structures and has fallen slowly but surely.

Eh i tend to take the constructionist view because the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution as the way it was meant to be read. If congress doesn't like it that's why the Amendment process is there. So while it IS a living document, it is not from the Supreme Courts point of view. If the supreme court was to interpret the document as a living document, then it can be changed by the whim of the supreme court and there would be no point in having Amendments... The Constitution in this case is no more than the base work for Common Law, which imo, it is not. There is a reason they made it hard to amend the Constitution. But uh, i tend to generalize constructionist and living document types with conservative and liberal - especially considering that conservative and liberal mean almost nothing because they are such broad generalizations. But from your point of view, yes i can understand how those judges would be hypocritical in their decision.

Yeah and the liberal(?) judge who replaces them will be hypocritical and partisan when it comes to gun rights & other issues. Too bad there are no libertarian types on the supreme court.

Pfft, like that ever stopped the Feds from overstepping their authority

I have heard that there will be a proposition on the upcoming Cali ballot that redefines marriage in California. Under the proposal: 1. the government will NOT recognize marriage of ANY kind. 2. It will however issue "Civil Unions" to anyone who wants one. This is a big in the right direction imo should it pass

Wow that has to be one of the worst analogies i have heard in a while; it would have worked out fine if you had left out the last part... but you didn't.

But but... $4 Aerosol can + 99c bic lighter = flame thrower.

I have no problems supporting the rights of others provided they support my rights as well. Lets get some interesting threads in here instead of gay marriage ones since the argument usually turns out: with the same responses. Either It should be legal for all. Or the government shouldn't recognize any of it (defacto approval). Or maybe one person opposing it. And since Olds does not disagree with the non-recognition of marriage so long as the legally binding papers exist to distribute your own rights (such as property and such) provided that heterosexuals are not granted recognition either, it is not really even a fun thread to go through. (just no abortion threads cause those will always be divided and there's no point, its been nearly 50/50 since it was legalized). Here we go: http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-military-bla...0,5041991.story Military Used Pigs In Blasts To Test Armor discuss.

Focusing on market share is just stupid. Would you rather have 55% of the market and make a profit of $1 or would you rather control 10% of the market and make $50 billion profit a year? Sure your STRATEGY may be to rapidly gain in market share, however when your strategy has consistently not worked, its time to tweak it.

The Board is the most powerful part of any company. They have the power to appoint, remove, and compensate management. Their decision is law in the company. In the old days the Board typically consisted of many of management from the company, however with the passing of SOX a significant amount of the board has to be of "outside" interests in the company.

There are Latin masses in Cali too.

Great interior. Weird Exterior. Come up with some real names Acura!

Why on Earth would Ford want to offload Volvo... unless they are that desperate for liquidity right now. They would be better served to keep Volvo if they can afford to.

I know its fairly frequent amongst monkeys and dolphins. This argument more or less gets back to morals and ethics. In some states it is illegal to marry your first cousin, however genetically there is no problems unless this practice occurs constantly generation after generation. This is based off of a generally accepted moral. There is no real difference between this and gay marriage if you really think about it. However, regardless of your stance, this is not the place of the government to tell people how to run their personal lives.